Re: Moving ipq-wifi to a dedicated repo

2022-06-29 Thread Robert Marko 
On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 at 23:30, Christian Marangi  wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 11:08:43PM +0200, Christian Lamparter wrote:
> > On 28/06/2022 23:41, Ansuel Smith wrote:
> > > As the title said, it was suggested to move the ipq-wifi package
> > > board file to a separate repo.
> >
> > ipq-wifi Makefile is painfully self aware in that regard.
> >
> > |  20 # This is intended to be used on an interim basis until 
> > device-specific
> > |  21 # board data for new devices is available through the upstream 
> > compilation
> > |  22 #
> > |  23 # Please send a mail with your device-specific board files upstream.
> > |  24 # You can find instructions and examples on the linux-wireless wiki:
> > |  25 # 
> > 
> >
> > My "go-to" solution was to point people to this notice, provided them with
> > the example/template and wait for a mail to show up on ath10k-devel before
> > merging the "new device" PRs. If OpenWrt starts a repo for boardfiles, that
> > maintainer would be left holding the bag for upstreaming the files 
> > themselves.
> >
> > So in a way, that separate repo exists in Kalle's
> > https://github.com/kvalo/ath10k-firmware and the upstream linux-firmware.git

Well, that is the ideal place,
but let's remember that last time it took him a year to merge new BDF-s.

So, as a staging ground moving the BDF-s to a new GIT repo under the OpenWrt
umbrella looks good to me.
But we should really enforce requiring people to send BDF-s upstream before the
boards are merged, with the exception of MikroTik IPQ40xx devices that have
the BDF-s extracted from flash during runtime.

Regards,
Robert
> >
> > As for moving the eye-sores to a separate repository: If the (group) of
> > people which suggested the move wants to do it for the duration:
> > Sure, why not?
> >
> > If they welcome ideas and random thoughts:
> >
> > Kalle extended the public/open-source ath10k-bdencoder tool with an
> > "--add-mbox" (parses mbox/mails) and "--commit" (commit it to a git repo)
> > options. Maybe this could be of some use?
> >
> > Yes, this would essentially create one big board-2.bin for each QCA
> > variant. But this might not be that bad, because the file can simply be
> > shipped for all non-upstreamed devices instead of the individual
> > ipq-wifi-$device packages we have now.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Christian
>
> I see your point... Ideally we should all submit the board...
> I like the idea of creating a big board-2.bin
> Would also prepare things when the board is actually pushed upstream...
>
> Will see what I can do... Also curious of the delay in submitting a
> board file and have that merged in ath10k-firmware.
>
> --
> Ansuel
>
> ___
> openwrt-devel mailing list
> openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
> https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: Moving ipq-wifi to a dedicated repo

2022-06-29 Thread Christian Marangi 
On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 11:08:43PM +0200, Christian Lamparter wrote:
> On 28/06/2022 23:41, Ansuel Smith wrote:
> > As the title said, it was suggested to move the ipq-wifi package
> > board file to a separate repo.
> 
> ipq-wifi Makefile is painfully self aware in that regard.
> 
> |  20 # This is intended to be used on an interim basis until device-specific
> |  21 # board data for new devices is available through the upstream 
> compilation
> |  22 #
> |  23 # Please send a mail with your device-specific board files upstream.
> |  24 # You can find instructions and examples on the linux-wireless wiki:
> |  25 # 
> 
> My "go-to" solution was to point people to this notice, provided them with
> the example/template and wait for a mail to show up on ath10k-devel before
> merging the "new device" PRs. If OpenWrt starts a repo for boardfiles, that
> maintainer would be left holding the bag for upstreaming the files themselves.
> 
> So in a way, that separate repo exists in Kalle's
> https://github.com/kvalo/ath10k-firmware and the upstream linux-firmware.git
> 
> As for moving the eye-sores to a separate repository: If the (group) of
> people which suggested the move wants to do it for the duration:
> Sure, why not?
> 
> If they welcome ideas and random thoughts:
> 
> Kalle extended the public/open-source ath10k-bdencoder tool with an
> "--add-mbox" (parses mbox/mails) and "--commit" (commit it to a git repo)
> options. Maybe this could be of some use?
> 
> Yes, this would essentially create one big board-2.bin for each QCA
> variant. But this might not be that bad, because the file can simply be
> shipped for all non-upstreamed devices instead of the individual
> ipq-wifi-$device packages we have now.
> 
> Regards,
> Christian

I see your point... Ideally we should all submit the board...
I like the idea of creating a big board-2.bin
Would also prepare things when the board is actually pushed upstream...

Will see what I can do... Also curious of the delay in submitting a
board file and have that merged in ath10k-firmware.

-- 
Ansuel

___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: Moving ipq-wifi to a dedicated repo

2022-06-29 Thread Christian Lamparter 

On 28/06/2022 23:41, Ansuel Smith wrote:

As the title said, it was suggested to move the ipq-wifi package
board file to a separate repo.


ipq-wifi Makefile is painfully self aware in that regard.

|  20 # This is intended to be used on an interim basis until device-specific
|  21 # board data for new devices is available through the upstream compilation
|  22 #
|  23 # Please send a mail with your device-specific board files upstream.
|  24 # You can find instructions and examples on the linux-wireless wiki:
|  25 # 

My "go-to" solution was to point people to this notice, provided them with
the example/template and wait for a mail to show up on ath10k-devel before
merging the "new device" PRs. If OpenWrt starts a repo for boardfiles, that
maintainer would be left holding the bag for upstreaming the files themselves.

So in a way, that separate repo exists in Kalle's
https://github.com/kvalo/ath10k-firmware and the upstream linux-firmware.git

As for moving the eye-sores to a separate repository: If the (group) of
people which suggested the move wants to do it for the duration:
Sure, why not?

If they welcome ideas and random thoughts:

Kalle extended the public/open-source ath10k-bdencoder tool with an
"--add-mbox" (parses mbox/mails) and "--commit" (commit it to a git repo)
options. Maybe this could be of some use?

Yes, this would essentially create one big board-2.bin for each QCA
variant. But this might not be that bad, because the file can simply be
shipped for all non-upstreamed devices instead of the individual
ipq-wifi-$device packages we have now.

Regards,
Christian

___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Moving ipq-wifi to a dedicated repo

2022-06-28 Thread Ansuel Smith 
As the title said, it was suggested to move the ipq-wifi package
board file to a separate repo.

The problem is that we currently ship many board file with the
openwrt git repo and we always download them.

These won't change that much (or probably forever) and so
shipping them and downloading them by default seems to be
wasted space for other target that don't use it.

I wonder if a better approach would be move these special board
file to a dedicated repo and make the ipq-wifi Makefile to just clone
the repo.

I'm asking for feedback if this would make sense or it not worth it
and would result in added complexity.

___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel